The Dirty Little Secret About the Fourteenth Amendment

[GrandEagle]

Sure, you can just about pick any law passed in the last 50 years or so; more so in the last 20.
lets just take civil forfeiture:
Your property and/or lifelong earnings can be taken without you even being charged with a crime. All that is technically necessary is for me to call in and report that you were dealing drugs.
There are no legal limitations at all constraining the government from stealing your property.
You, technically, have to go to a judge and prove that your property wasn't involved it this activity, which of course, you can't do.
This is now, and has been frequently abused. However, they are careful not to push too far, because (I think) as long as the cases of abuse are few and far between, most people write it off as "well they must have been guilty of something".
I think that the recent eminent domain decision be SCOUTS could very well lead to armed resistance in places.

I would venture to say that you can not go through a day without doing something that, if the intent of the original law was abused, you could land in jail, or have your entire fortune seized.

Try, for example, withdrawing $10,000 cash and carrying it around. If caught, the authority can simply take it. The mere fact that you had it is evidence of foul play on your part. As long as they don't charge you with a crime, your money is just gone.

I would just add that we not refer to governmental powers as rights...
Agreed - 100%

I too enjoyed the conversation - thanks
GE

[justshutupandtakeit]

Constitutionally Congress is the branch of government to propose amendments or call a constitutional convention. Hence it is the sole judge of when those amendments have passed. Congress is the first among equals of the branches of government and is the only one which can allow new states into the Union and which can control the Courts through the "exceptions clause". It makes up its own rules and regulations which are exempt from involvement by other branches. Those rules and regulations extend to approval of proposed constitutional amendments and validation of their ratification.

If you review the amendment making process you will find that only Congress and state legislatures have a role in amending the Constitution.

[ml/nj]

Congress is the ONLY judge to the proper ratification of an amendment.

I'm not sure where you got this idea from. Even when the Constitution specifically gives a legislature power (as e.g. in the case of determining electors for the President) the courts still seem to get involved. But the Congress has no role in the amending process beyond proposing amendments (excepting a small role if a convention is called).

ML/NJ

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is the Congress that receives notification from the States of ratification.

It must establish the rules and regulations relative to that. It establishes the time span over which ratification can be done. If you recall Congress refused to extend the period for ratification of the ERA after it had expired without enough "yeahs" having been received.

[inquest]

If you recall Congress refused to extend the period for ratification of the ERA after it had expired without enough "yeahs" having been received.

Congress lacked the power to extend it, except by re-proposing it with the requisite two-thirds majority all over again. The seven-year period was part of the amendment itself. It was not part of any piece of legislation, or any other resolution or judgment Congress made. If it's not contained in the amendment itself, Congress is powerless to impose it.